They amake night into day: ‘The light,’ they say, ‘is near to the darkness.’

(Job 17:12 ESV)

Darkness comes in many figurative forms. One symbol of darkness in Scripture is that of suffering, or sickness of the soul and/or body. In the Old Testament Scriptures, Job is an exemplar of such suffering. Job describes his suffering in terms of the darkness of night. Amidst his suffering, Job prays to God for relief, hoping that God will soon dispel his misery with a cheer of liberation, cheer in terms of hope, hope symbolized by the light of day.

Another prominent symbol of darkness in Scripture is spiritual blindness. Scripture tells us that both the world is in darkness and that all people in the world (that is unconverted, unregenerate people), are blinded by the spiritual darkness of night, a night ruled by “the god of this world,” the Prince of Darkness. Paul says:

And even aif our gospel is veiled, bit is veiled only to cthose who are perishing. 4 In their case athe god of this world xhas blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing ethe light of bthe gospel of the glory of Christ, cwho is the image of God (2Co 4:3-4 ESV).

But what about the Church, the visible gathering of God’s people in history? Can the Church experience spiritual darkness? The Old Testament Church (the Church of Israel) sure did. A cursory study of the history of Israel is replete with copious examples of spiritual darkness. Case in point is the Nation of Judah during the reign of King Josiah (Southern Israel comprised of the two tribes of Benjamin and Judah). Josiah was a godly King during a time of spiritual darkness. The reason for the spiritual darkness was because the light of God’s Word had been lost, quite literally. We read: “And Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, “I have found athe Book of the Law in the house of the LORD.” And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it” (2Ki 22:8 ESV). The Bible (Hebrew Bible) had been missing along with a thorough knowledge of its contents. Hilkiah, the Hight Priest, was cleaning the treasure room in the Temple, and he found their missing bible, the “Book of the Law.” Hilkiah informed Josiah the King that the Word of God had been found; the King immediately enacted reform. Josiah’s “Reformation” ushered in a spiritual awakening, an awakening from pagan darkness to the light of God’s Word to guide the people of God away from darkness and into the light.

Something very similar happened in the Church almost 500 years ago. For nearly a thousand years or more both the unadulterated Word of God and the gospel had been eclipsed by spiritual darkness: the spiritual darkness of man-made tradition vs. the Scripture, the spiritual darkness of man earning his way to heaven by mixing good works with faith vs. the gospel way of man not earning, but receiving salvation as a gift by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus’ work of earning salvation for us as our one-and-only Mediator between man and God. For over a thousand years there was spiritual darkness, darkness that gave way to light. Protestant historians all agree that the date for when this happened was on October 31, 1517. This was when an obscure German, Augustinian monk, Martin Luther, nailed his 95 Thesis on the doors of All Saint’s church in Wittenberg; this event was the beginning of a reformation in the church, a reformation that still goes on today. The motto which the first and second generation of Reformers used to capture the spirit of the 16th-century Reformation was Post tenebras lux (After the Darkness Light), inspired by the Vulgate (Latin Bible) translation of Job 17:12.

Over the summer leading up to Reformation Sunday, I will be sharing with you the light that came out of the darkness known as the Five-Solas. The Five-Solas are five Latin phrases (or slogans) that emerged from the Protestant Reformation intended to summarize the Reformers’ basic theological principles in contrast to certain teachings of the Medieval Church of Rome during that time. Sola is Latin meaning “alone” or “only.” The phrases are:

Sola Fide, by faith alone.

Sola Scriptura, by Scripture alone.

Sola Fide, through faith alone.

Sola Gratia, by grace alone.

Solus Christus, through Christ alone

Soli Deo Gloria, to the glory of God lone.

Praise God for the hope of both the light of His Word and the liberating truth of His gospel!!

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

I Corinthians 15: 12-14

Alister McGrath, a former atheist who has become a believer in Christ, a theologian and a scientist, tells the following story about the first time he awakened to the hope of Christ’s resurrection:

[As a young man], I was a grumpy and frankly rather arrogant atheist. I was totally convinced that there was no God, and that anyone who thought there was needed to be locked up for her own good. I was majoring in the sciences at high school and had won a scholarship to study chemistry at Oxford University, beginning in October 1971. I had every reason to believe that studying the sciences further would confirm my rampant godlessness. While waiting to go up to Oxford, I decided to work my way through a pile of “improving books.” Needless to say, none of them were religious.

Eventually, I came to a classic work of philosophy—Plato’s Republic. I couldn’t make sense of everything I read. But one image etched itself into my imagination. Plato asks us to imagine a group of men, trapped in a cave, knowing only a world of flickering shadows cast by a fire. Having experienced no other world, they assume that the shadows are the only reality. Yet the reader knows—and is meant to know—that there is another world beyond the cave, awaiting discovery.

As I read this passage, the hard-nosed rationalist within me smiled condescendingly. Typical escapist superstition! What you see is what you get, and that’s the end of the matter. Yet a still, small voice within me whispered words of doubt. What if this world is only part of the story? What if this world is only a shadowland? What if there is something more wonderful beyond it?

McGrath’s struggle with the truth(s) of the Christian faith is not unique. The Apostle Paul had his own barriers, one being (from a Jewish perspective) the barrier of a religious tradition that assumed that the Messiah would conquer via the glory and honor of war, not the ignominious cross of dishonor.

Barriers to belief many times come in the form of intellectual pride as with McGrath, but McGrath knew by virtue of the moral law within and the starry sky above that “there is something more wonderful beyond” this life. Our neo-pagan culture lies to itself by saying that this is all that there is. It reduces reality to matter, a contiguous concourse of mere molecules in motion. We are like the ancients in Plato’s Allegory of the Cave; we believe the shadows of this dark fallen world are all that there is. Yet, some of us are like St. Paul prior to his conversion; because of religious pride we assume “man-made” traditions are all that there is. Religious tradition can too cast a long, dark shadow upon us. Even regenerate (born again) Christians will allow the need to belong to muddy our thinking in the morass of misconceptions. This was the case for Paul as he addressed the First Church of Corinth. Their intellectual pride of wanting to be accepted by their surrounding pagan culture (sounds familiar?) had them buying into pagan concepts (like the pagan idea that there is no bodily resurrection of believers), concepts contrary to the essentials of the faith (like the Christian idea of the physical, bodily resurrection of Christ).

These are just some barriers to belief. Others barriers can be suffering, evil, and pain. However, when we are confronted with the resurrected Lord, when we have an encounter with the living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, when we encounter the ultimate reality of the Word of God made flesh then all the idols of our minds retreat while our hearts surrender to Christ. This is what happened to Paul. It was Paul’s encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus which eroded his doubt; his pang of a guilty conscience receded into the shadows in the face of the overwhelming effulgence of the resurrected Lord.

During this season of Lent and Easter if you are struggling with doubt—e.g. doubt from pride, or doubt from pain and loss, etc.–turn your gaze again to the reality of our Lord who conquered death not for Himself, but for us. Because of Christ’s death on the cross, death for us is but a shadow; and because of Christ’s life and resurrection there is something more wonderful here and now for us and beyond!

21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. (Mat 5:21-22a NIV)

In one of his books, the great preacher and teacher Leslie Weatherhead tells about visiting some friends who had an old dog named Pete. Pete was in sad shape. He tottered about, had a raw spot on his back, and arthritis in his joints. Weatherhead asked his friends, “Why don’t you have Pete put to sleep?” “Oh no,” they said, “Pete is Mike’s dog.” Mike was their son who was away at the university. “If we put old Pete to sleep, what would we say when Mike came home and looked for his beloved dog? We couldn’t bear to say to him, ‘oh, we put him to sleep because he was such a bother and he wasn’t worth saving.”‘

“Not worth saving.” That was the label that Weatherhead could hang on old Pete, but not the parents because of their love for Mike and Mike’s love for old Pete. Love is a heavily value laden term, especially objects of sentimental value. The old dog Pete may not be loved by us but he’s definitely loved and valued by Mike. Can you imagine some cynical angel, like Weatherhead, looking down on the world and saying, “I don’t see why God keeps those mangy humans around? Look how they disobey. Look how wretched most of them are. Why don’t you just wipe them out? They aren’t worth saving!” Morally speaking, we deserve the moral description of being mangy, but the reason why God doesn’t put us down, so to speak, is because our value is based on God’s benevolent love for us. We are God’s creation, made in His image and by virtue of this– HUMAN LIFE is sacred; human life is priceless.

So why does God give us a commandment that all cultures to one degree or another agree that murder (the unlawful taking of a human life) is wrong. Is God being superfluous? No!! God (in what some consider stating the obvious) is reinforcing the idea that human life is sacred. If there is no God, all things are permissible… even murder! Apart from God, there is nothing left but (as the late John Paul stated) a culture of death.

A culture of death surrounded ancient Israel. Not only was animal sacrifices acceptable, but also human sacrifice. (God Moloch). These pagan gods reflected the blood thirsty culture of death. It was in the midst of this culture of death that God commands Israel to value life. The term used in the Hebrew is RATZACH; this Hebrew word is never used in connection to the lawful execution of a death penalty or the kind of killing that takes place when a soldier is in a life and death situation that demands killing, nor is this word ever used in connection with hunting or killing animals for cultic reasons. What the bible forbids is not killing, but the unlawful killing of a human being: “You shall not murder.” This ranges from premeditated, cold blooded murder, from voluntary manslaughter (crimes of passion) to involuntary manslaughter (unintentional deaths). The sixth commandment is a prohibition against the unjust taking of a legally innocent life. This is why God does not exclude one participating in a just war or capital punishment. This is why I am not a pacifist when it comes to war or capital punishment, because to sanctify life is to sanctify INNOCENT life.

(All preaching is about afflicting the comfortable and bringing comfort to the afflicted!) When we look out upon our moral landscape how has innocent life been compromised? Abortion! Now I know that there may be some rare cases for abortion (like if the life of the mother is compromised) but we all know that abortion policies are basically a license to kill. The task of the faith community is to urge pregnant women to give their unborn children the right to life. An abortion happens in America every three minutes. 27 percent of all the pregnancies in America, over one/fourth, end in abortion. During this service of worship, 180 abortions will occur. 94 percent of them happen because the mother (with or without husband) says that she can’t afford the child or that the child would interfere with the parents’ life style. To abort an unborn child for those reasons is a violation of the sixth commandment.

More and more we are living in a culture of death. In our secular and pragmatic society, innocent life is no longer sacred, but useful. If one’s life is no longer useful, but in fact becomes a burden on society or if one’s life is defective (of no use) then it’s time to abort.

A university professor, Dr. Christ Gabbard, valorized human intellect, while detesting poor mental function. This led him to adopt the ethics of Peter Singer who argues that society has a right to exclude people who are not “persons.” For instance, Singer and Gabbard believed that severely disabled people should either be killed or allowed to die. But the birth of Gabbard’s son who was born with permanent brain damage and is today a blind quadriplegic with cerebral palsy changed his mind. Gabbard writes:

“After his birth … I was deeply ambivalent, having been persuaded by [Peter Singer’s] advocacy of … infanticide. But there was my son, asleep or unconscious, on a ventilator, motionless under a heat lamp, tubes and wires everywhere, monitors alongside his still and transparent-plastic crib. What most stirred me was the way he resembled me. Nothing had prepared me for this shock of recognition, for he was the boy in my own baby pictures, the image of me when I was an infant….Many such well-meaning people would like to end my son’s suffering, but they do not stop to consider whether he is actually suffering. At times he is uncomfortable, yes, but the only real pain here seems to be the pain of those who cannot bear the thought that people like [my son] exist.”[1]

Notice what Dr. Gabbard says: “What most stirred me was the way he resembled me. Nothing had prepared me for this shock of recognition, for he was the boy in my own baby pictures, the image of me when I was an infant.” You see, Dr. Gabbard realized that his son’s value wasn’t in his function, but in his humanity. He noticed that his son was a human as he was human. But how did Dr. Gabbard come to the asinine conclusion that functionality defined humanity as humanity?

Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University’s Center for Human Values Peter Singer has said; “Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person.” Singer, who is considered the father of the international animal rights movement, has said that children less than one month old have no human consciousness and do not have the same rights as others. (Religion Today, 4/19/99). What is evil about Dr. Singer and his wicked statement is that personhood is connected to function. If our usefulness is radically compromised then our humanity is dehumanized beneath that of a common beast: ready for the slaughter house.

Even recently in the news we have seen the obscene and callous nature of Planned Parenthood, relegating the value of little aborted babies to the usefulness of their body parts. What is evil about both Planned Parenthood and Dr. Singer and his wicked statement is that personhood is connected to function. If our usefulness is radically compromised then our humanity is dehumanized beneath that of a common beast: ready for the slaughter house, while body parts are auctioned to the highest bidder!

To press this point for why this is morally evil and intellectually obtuse let me share a very important distinction between God’s love and human love. G K Chesterton notes the difference between human beings loving what we create versus God loving what he creates! He notes that we can only truly love what we create after it comes into being. We can tear down a house halfway and no big deal. But it’s not until a house becomes a home that we have a strong emotional connection. Not so with God. God loves what he creates before it comes into being. Question—is a baby a human product, something humans construct, not worthy of love until it comes into full being, like a house that can be torn down half way through construction? Or is a baby a divine creation deserving love before he or she is born? Which is it?

A professor at the UCLA Medical School asked his students this question: “Here is the family history: The father has syphilis. The mother has TB. They already have had four children. The first is blind. The second had died. The third is deaf. The fourth has TB. The mother is pregnant. The parents are willing to have an abortion if you decide they should. What do you think?” Most of the students decided on abortion. “Congratulations,” said the professor. “You have just murdered Beethoven!” Nothing is so final as murder, even when it is done very early in a life. The collaboration of the medical community in collaboration with an increasingly secular state is a dangerous combination without the strictures and moral guidance of religion. The church must be the moral conscious of a nation to uphold the sanctity of innocent life when human life is obviously profaned; this is obvious!

However, what about when it’s not so obvious. Abortion is an obvious violation of the sixth commandment, but what about no so obvious violation? In our text this morning Jesus talked about a not so obvious way that the sanctity of innocent life is compromised: viz. resentment, hatred. 21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.

Leonard Holt was a paragon of respectability. He was a middle-aged, hard-working lab technician who had worked at the same Pennsylvania paper mill for nineteen years. Having been a Boy Scout leader, an affectionate father, a member of the local fire brigade, and a regular church attender, he was admired as a model in his community – until that image exploded in a well-planned hour of bloodshed one brisk October morning. A proficient marksman, Leonard Holt stuffed two pistols in his coat pockets and drove to the mill. He stalked slowly into his shop and began shooting with calculated frenzy. He filled several co-workers with two or three bullets apiece, firing more than thirty shots, killing some men he had known for more than fifteen years. When the police found him standing defiantly in his doorway, he snarled, “Come and get me, you ________. I’m not taking any more of your _______!”

Bewilderment swept the community. Puzzled policemen and friends finally found a train of logic behind his brief reign of terror. Down deep within the heart of Leonard Holt rumbled the giant of resentment. His monk-like exterior concealed the seething hatred within. The investigation yielded the following facts: Several victims had been promoted over him while he remained in the same position. More than one in Holt’s carpool had quit riding with him due to his reckless driving. The man was brimming with resentment – rage that could be held no longer. Beneath his picture in Time, the caption told the story: “Responsible, Respectable, and Resentful.” (God Is For Life, 5/16/99, J. David Hoke). Let us not forget that when we hate our brothers or sisters, let us not forget when we personally hate our neighbor and our enemies we violate the sixth commandment. May we uphold the dignity and sanctity of life.

In conclusion, during the 1840’s in the Fiji Islands of the Pacific, a man was worth $7. You could buy a man for a musket. After you bought him you could starve him, work him, whip him or eat him. Cannibalism was very popular in those regions. But if you went to the Fiji Islands forty years later you could not buy a man for $7 million. What had made the difference?

Heroic missionaries like John G. Paton had brought the Gospel. Twelve hundred Christian chapels were scattered over the islands. The people had learned to read a book which says, “You shall not murder.” They had learned to see persons through the eyes of Christ. As we put on Christian lenses and focus on them as persons, murder will stop and God will be feared and our fellow man honored. What is a mangy human life worth? Priceless!! Amen!

Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. 21abFrom that time Jesus began to show his disciples that bhe must go to Jerusalem and csuffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on dthe third day be raised. 22 And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord!1 This shall never happen to you.” 23 But he turned and said to Peter, a“Get behind me, Satan! You are ba hindrance1 to me. For you care not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.” 24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him adeny himself and btake up his cross and follow me. 25 For awhoever would save his life1 will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

(Mat 16:2–25 ESV)

We live in a fallen world. Evidence to this fact abounds. Case in point, is the recent mass murder in Florida. What motivated Omar Mir Seddique Mateen to kill 49 innocent people at the Pulse, Orlando’s premier gay night club? There are probably many tangential reasons why: cultural, social, psychological. But behind all of these possible reasons there is at the core a theological reason. What do I mean? Unlike the Christian faith, the institutions of church and state (mosque) in the faith of Islam are conflated where the moral line between the power of persuasion and the persuasion of power is erased. It is no accident that the primary symbol of the Islamic faith is the scimitar. This does not mean all Muslims are violent. In fact it’s the contrary; a majority of Muslims are peaceful people. However, if one goes to the “root” of the Islamic faith one will find at its historical and theological core justification for violence in the name of Allah. The term radical means root. “Radical” Islam is nothing more than going to the “root” of Islam. The root is the symbol of the scimitar or sword, a symbol of killing in the name of Allah. This was the core motivation of Mr. Mateen.

This is in contradiction to the Christian faith. The primary symbol of the Christian faith is the cross. Like the scimitar it too is a symbol of death. But unlike the scimitar it’s a symbol of death to self. Jesus died on the cross to save sinners. And in turn a Christian is called to (as Jesus says) “take up his cross and follow [Jesus].”

How do we take up our crosses? One way we take up our crosses is to love people, not condemn people; we are to relate to people, not discount them. As Christians how should we relate to homosexuals? Listen to how philosopher/theologian Dr. John Frame says we should love homosexuals:

In general, my view is that Christians should relate to homosexuals as people like themselves, in the image of God and therefore precious, but also fallen and therefore under God’s judgment apart from the grace of Christ. We should lovingly present Christ in such a way that brings repentance from sexual and other sins, and that brings change to a godly lifestyle.

We live in a fallen world, but the cross (not the scimitar) is this world’s only hope of redemption.

May we lovingly present Christ that brings repentance to not only homosexuals but all sinners. For we are all sinners saved by grace, denying ourselves and taking up our crosses daily.

But when athe goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, anot because of works done by us in righteousness, but baccording to his own mercy, by cthe washing of regeneration and drenewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he apoured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that abeing justified by his grace we might become bheirs caccording to the hope of eternal life.

(Tit 3:4-7 ESV)

C.S. Lewis famously said: “The highest doesn’t stand without the lowest.” This makes sense. Case in point, what makes the height of Mt. Everest so spectacular is the depths of the Grand Canyon. What makes the height of the Freedom Tower possible is the depth of its foundation.

This is true, especially true of the gospel. The height of the good news of the gospel does not stand without the depths of the bad news. R.C. Sproul notes: “The gospel is only good news when we understand the bad news.” If someone says to you—“I have bad news and good news”—if you are like me you may prefer the bad first (to get that out of the way) then the good. As a child I would prefer first my bland vegetables so I could in turn enjoy my dessert.

This is true of the gospel. Tim Keller says that: “In the gospel, we discover we are far worse off than we thought, and far more loved than we ever dreamed.” In other words the good news is the love of God, that we are loved beyond our wildest dreams, that we are accepted beyond what we can ever imagine, that we are embraced with breathtaking love! This is the height of the gospel that takes our breath away!

However, many take this for granted. Many in the churches across America today assume they are loved by God. God’s love is too domesticated, too tame, and too familiar. Such an understanding of God’s love is far from breathtaking, it’s more stale, arid, and old. Such a heart has never experienced the true love of God.

Ironically, what makes the height of God’s love so breathtaking to a true believer is coming to an understanding of the depths of our sinful nature, a biblical understanding that we (apart from Christ) are far worse off than we thought. Unconverted man hates this notion. Because of this he creates man made religions. For example look at legalism and humanism, The man- made religion of legalism tells us that the glass of our human goodness is half- empty. We are good, but not good enough. So, because of this, we must keep striving to increase our half-empty glass to being two-thirds empty or three-fourths empty with emphasis on the empty, the not quite good enough. The religion of legalism is fatally pessimistic. The other extreme is the man-made religion of humanism. It tells us that the glass of our human goodness is half-full. We are good, and getting better. We must strive to increase our half-full glass to being two-thirds full or three-fourths full with emphasis on our fullness; we are good and getting better all the time. The religion on humanism is fatally optimistic.

However, the gospel of God concerning Christ (the only God-made religion) is neither pessimistic, nor optimistic. It’s realistic. The gospel via the law says that it doesn’t matter if the glass of human goodness is either half-empty or half-full. For example, the gospel says that it doesn’t matter if the glass of your human goodness either has one drop in it (like the vice of an Adolf Hitler) or full to the brim (like the virtue of a Socrates). The gospel via the law tells us that the glass of our human nature is dirty with sin, that our dirty glass of sin contaminates our good works. The bad news is not that our glass is full or empty, but dirty. It doesn’t matter how little or how much water we have. It is still dirty.

But the good news is this: if we would fall on the mercy God and trust and repent of our sins and stop looking to our accomplishments (whether half-full or half-empty) and look to what Christ has accomplished on the cross, then God will do what is impossible for us to do; God (as Paul says to Titus) will wash us, and renews us, and pour out on and in us His Holy Spirit. In short, He will pour out our good works, wash the glass of our hearts, and renew us by pouring his presence and power within us, replacing the sour water of our righteousness with the pure water of the righteousness of Christ. Beloved this is the breathtaking height of the gospel!! As Christians may we soak this in! Though we are far worse off than we dare to think, remember that we are far more loved than we dare to dream.

Does Justification still matter?[1] If it does, is it enough of a matter to fight over, or should we choose another battle?[2] Michael Horton asks these questions in light of some within the evangelical community who would answer in the negative. Case in point is Mark Noll, a leading evangelical historian of American Religious History. Noll argues that “things are not the way they use to be.”[3] Speaking for a large numbers of evangelicals, Noll’s contention is that the Reformation is over, that the Solas of the Reformation are no longer a bone of contention. Is he correct?

The purpose of this short academic essay is not to argue that the Reformation continues. I assume it to be the case. I also assume that the material cause of the 16th Century Reformation is still a bone of contention, that Justification still matters. I say this not only because of my own interests and personal piety, and not only in light of both the historical[4] and the contemporary[5] disconnect between RCC and the Reformed community (i.e., between the official dogma of Rome’s infused righteousness vs the Reformed view of imputed righteousness); I says this because of the intermural debate that rages among Protestants: that is between those within the Reformed, evangelical community who hold to the traditional view (or Old Perspective ) of Justification by faith vs the so called New Pauline Perspective (NPP) of Justification. The general thrust of this essay argues against the NPP represented by N.T. Wright in favor of the traditional perspective of Justification represented by John Piper; both men are scholars, pastors, and popular authors within evangelicalism, and Reformed circles, both of whom have been taken to task and have taken each other to task over this issue. The particular purpose of this essay is to look at one very important feature within this debate among theologians; that feature is the Righteousness of God. The Righteousness of God is the foundational/starting off point for both the traditional view and the NPP of Justification. So this essay will offer a critical/constructive analysis of both Wright and Piper pertaining to the righteousness of God.

The Righteousness of God According to Wright

In general the NPP is a particular reassessment of Justification within the trajectory of higher criticism[6], a recontextualization of the teachings of the NT. This higher critical recontextualization claims that the traditional view, the view that “works of the laws” qua both legalism and works righteousness (which has traditionally been interpreted as being at the heart of Paul’s polemical teaching) was all wrong. At the heart this reevaluation is the inclusion of the Gentiles as the covenant people of God along with “covenant badges”[7] of inclusion. Wright argues for a covenantal approach.[8] Wright situates Justification within ecclesiology not soteriology as traditionally understood. This move allows Wright to define his notion of righteousness in relation to said covenantal understanding.[9]

Wright states that there are options for defining or reinterpreting the meaning of the righteousness of God.[10] Out of the four possible options, Wright rules out “distributive justice” a la Luther and Kasemann’s “non-covenantal” understanding of God’s saving-creating power.[11] Wright favors a combination of both “covenant faithfulness” and “acts of covenant faithfulness.”[12] The former is distinguished grammatically as a “possessive genitive,” referring to God’s moral attribute of “covenant faithfulness” The latter he distinguishes as a “subjective genitive” of God’s actions of covenantal faithfulness. Both— that is, God’s attribute of faithfulness and His actions of faithfulness— identify so closely together to the point of erasing “…the line that separate the two senses.”

For Wright, the righteousness of God goes beyond the grammatical distinctions such as possessive and subjective genitive. The righteousness of God is (at its conceptual core) a demonstration of God’s covenantal faithfulness. In his exposition of Romans 1:16-17 he says that the gospel “…reveals or unveils God’s own righteousness, his covenant faithfulness, which operates through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for the benefit of all those who in turn are faithful (‘from faith to faith’).[13] So in other words, the gospel is the good news (proclamation) that God has kept his word; He promised to decisively end the evil that has corrupted all of creation, and to restore “justice, peace, and truth.”

This definition has a huge implication upon how we traditionally understand the imputed righteousness of Christ within a forensic context. When the sinner (defendant) is declared righteous, though he is forgiven, there is no moral reckoning of righteousness as in the traditional view. Contra the traditional view, Wright argues that when one is declared righteous[14] one is declared a member of the covenant. For Wright, covenant faithfulness is not the same as the righteousness that humans possess[15] when they are declared members of the covenant. In another place he explains:

In the Hebrew law court the judge does not give, bestow, impute, or impart his own “righteousness” to the defendant. That would imply that the defendant was deemed to have conducted a case impartially, in accordance with the law, to have punished sin and upheld the defenseless innocent ones. “Justification, of course, means nothing like that. “Righteousness” is not a quality or substance that can be thus passed to or transferred from the judge to the defendant. The righteousness of the judge is the judge’s own character, status, activity, demonstrated in doing these various things. The “righteousness” of the defendant is the status they possess when the court has found in their favor. Nothing more, nothing less. When we translate these forensic categories back into their theological context, that of the covenant, the point remains fundamental: the divine covenant faithful is not the same as human covenant membership.[16]

This statement is important in that it explain Wright’s understanding of the nature of the righteousness of God. Said righteousness is his own righteousness, a righteousness God does not share, nor impute to members of the covenant. We can say that the righteousness of God is incommunicable, while the traditional perspective is a communicable or shared righteousness. My point is that the difference between Wright’s notion and the traditional “old perspective” is one of kind, not only degree. In other words, the righteousness of God is God’s faithfulness to His own covenant.[17] God is the keeper of the promise. In contradistinction, human righteousness by faith in Christ is about those whom benefit from God keeping His promise—that is those who are members within the covenant that God made and keeps![18]

The Righteousness of God According to Piper

In contrast to Wright, John Piper argues in favor of a traditional perspective for Paul in general,[19] over-and-against Wright’s NPP in particular.[20] Piper notes three categorical problems with how Wright arrives at his conclusion that the imputed righteousness of God to a guilty defendant is an error. The first problem he sees, that drives Wright to conclude that Paul does not teach an imputed righteousness, is with Wright’s logic.[21] Piper contends that Wright’s mistake begins with how he defines the righteousness of God, defined functionally as keeping covenant, judging impartially, dealing with sin, and advocating for the helpless.[22] He correctly notes that this is what righteousness does, not what righteousness is. Piper argues that this “limited,” functional definition distorts Wright’s reading of Paul, making the idea of imputation “a category mistake,” because the idea of a judge imputing his own “impartiality” to “a plaintiff” seems nonsensical.[23]

Piper critiques Wright’s view by observing the shallow nature of his definition, shallow in the sense that it doesn’t go far (or deep) enough. Wright is correct to say that God’s righteousness obliges Him to be faithful to his covenant promises by standing up for the oppressed and dealing justly with the oppressor. But Piper also correctly observes that God’s love and faithfulness and goodness induce Him as well. So Piper asks an important question: “What is it about God’s righteousness that incline him to act in these ways?”[24] What Piper is getting at is an ontological definition of righteousness (צְדָקָה) not functional definition regarding what God’s righteousness does (צִדְק֥וֹת ).[25] For Piper the deeper means of righteousness is stated as:

God’s righteousness is his unwavering allegiance to do what is right, that is, most ultimately, to uphold the infinite worth of his glory. The same holds true in principle for our moral righteousness. We were created to have this same unwavering allegiance to uphold the infinite worth of God’s glory in all we do. That is what it means for a human being to be righteousness.[26]

Before I go on to Wright’s dismissal of Piper definition, let us take a look at his definition. I am not sure if Piper has given us an ontological definition. Righteousness is still a “do[ing] what is right.” The “right” is based upon something ontological or internal to God: that is His glory. Piper does seem to be an improvement to Wright. Also, this has implication on defining human righteousness. Just as God is right in his unwavering allegiance to uphold his glory, the glory being the ontological standard within God Himself qua divine character/morality, likewise human morality qua righteousness is define by an unwavering allegiance to uphold the dignity and honor of God. If this is what Paul means by the Righteousness of God then we can say that such a righteousness via the active righteousness/obedience of Christ Jesus imputed to sinners by grace through faith would not be a categorical error. It would make sense. Jesus was all about upholding the honor and glory of God. And if such a moral righteousness were imputed to us then that would be a restoration of the very image/imitation of God in man. Let’s see if this bears out.

For Wright, he dismisses it with a few off handed remarks. He claims that Piper ignores the “mass of scholarly literature on the meaning of God’s righteousness.”[27] Then he claims that he is unaware of such a novel approach at defining God’s righteousness in both Greek and Hebrew from scholars on both camps on the divide: old or new perspectives, Catholic or Reformed, evangelical or “anyone” who contextualizes the righteousness of God as “God’s concern for his glory.” But in contradistinction he does say that the:

…widespread view is that tsedaqah/dikaiosyne in general…refers to ‘conformity with a norm,’ and when this is further contextualized as God’s ‘righteousness’ the strong possibility is that this refers to God’s fidelity to the norms he himself has set up, in other words, the covenant….Of course, when God acts in faithfulness to his own promises, the result is his name, his honor and his reputation being magnified or glorified. Nobody would deny that. But nowhere is it clear that ‘God’ righteousness’ actually denotes that glorification. Piper’s attempt to show that there must be a ‘righteousness’ behind God’s ‘covenant faithfulness’ actually is simply unconvincing. [28]

When Wright says— “of course, when God acts in faithfulness to his own promises, the result in his name, his honor and his reputation being magnified or glorified. Nobody would deny that. But nowhere is it clear that ‘God’s righteousness’ actually denotes that glorification”—does he mean to say that God’s concern for the honor and dignity of His name is tangential to God’s concern to keep his promise for the honor and dignity and reputation of His covenant people, that is for their namesake? If Wright means what he says then his approach is most anthropocentric, while Piper’s is theocentric. Also, when Wright says that the righteousness of God denotes or points to something beyond itself as God’s covenant keeping, but not the concern for His honor and glory—does he mean that covenant keeping is the ultimate intent of God, while God’s name being honored is an unintended “result,” a good byproduct, a sort of divine serendipity? It seems that if God’s name is honored via righteousness it would not be some byproduct. The byproduct would be God’s keeping His promises as a result of God’s righteousness in upholding the glory and honor of His own name. Wright’s notion is simply backward.

Interestingly enough, Wright alludes to Piper’s Justification of God as “his much fuller treatment elsewhere,” but oddly enough does not engage this “much fuller treatment” at all. But in this treatment Piper (so to speak) connects the dots, contextualizing the righteousness of God as the concern for his glory. Like Wright, Piper too acknowledges that the “cluster of words built on (צָדֵק) refers to ‘adherence to a norm’…signify[ing] ‘the state of correspondence to an objective norm.’”[29] Piper foot notes a number of scholars who “stress the norm-character of righteousness.” One in particular defines righteousness as “that standard which God maintains in the world. It is the norm by which all must be judged.”[30] David Novak suggests that when the term justice (mishpat) is coupled with righteousness (tsedequa) in the Hebrew Scriptures both are denoting the concept of “correct justice.” I would argue that complete justice is a better rendering than correct, in the sense that justice is incomplete and can only be improved where and when there is righteousness.[31] What Piper is saying (and Novak and many others concur) is that righteousness denotes a moral standard of justice in maintaining both the social order and morality which entails the social order of the covenant and covenant keeping, but it’s more than that; it’s essentially a term that denotes a norm, not covenant qua relationship/agreement.

However, Piper notes that though this traditional insight has not been abandoned by many contemporary exegetes, a new emphasis has emerged. The new emphasis transposes a moral norm into the register of relationship, that is to say contractual notions of mutual obligations. Righteousness is not a relationship to an ideal norm, but “mutual fulfillment of [agreed up] claims.”[32] Krasovec for instance says:

sdqh) shows that the fundamental meaning of the Hebrew word always remains

essentially the same. It designates God’s redemptive plan and fidelity to a faithful

people, God’s steadfast love, redemptive help and victory against oppressors.

God’s righteousness is an expression of a loving God’s attitude towards the covenant people, an attitude which is based on God’s sovereignty and is independent of human norms, knowledge and merit. God’s righteousness is valid for all members of the covenant people but only under the condition that they respond with fidelity and confidence.[33]

Piper does not argue that both the normative and covenantal hermeneutics are mutually exclusive. In fact he states that the latter has served as a corrective to righteousness qua distributive/retributive justice.[34] However, many exegetes (including Piper) have stayed with the normative understanding of righteousness because of the Old Testament usage of righteousness. Case in point is Lev 19: 36: “You shall do no wrong in judgment, in measures of length or weight or quantity. You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah and just hin.” Here Piper notes that a righteous weight conforms to a standard of measure, i.e. an objective norm.[35] Because of how righteousness is used in the Old Testament, he holds to a normative hermeneutic; yet Piper excludes a strictly tendentious reading of righteousness as distributive/retributive. He notes that righteousness is multivalent—it includes “deliverance” (Psa. 51: 14) in spite of guilt; Psa. 143: 1,2 equates God’s righteousness qua faithfulness to the unfaithful, i.e. mercy. In short Piper rules “out the idea that God’s righteousness is an impartial conformity to a norm by which each man gets his due.”[36]

In light of this, Piper holds to an alternative interpretation. He does not deny that righteousness is never found in the context of “covenant.” It’s just that it is seldom found in said context. He argues that the righteousness of God is not limited to either the norm of distributive justice or “covenant faithfulness.” He argues “…that, while God’s allegiance to the covenant is a real manifestation of God’s righteousness, nevertheless the [sic] most fundamental characteristic of God’s righteousness is his allegiance to his own name, that is, to his honor and glory.”[37] Piper quotes a number of passages depicting the “righteous deeds of God” done out of respect for His name. Ps. 31:1-3 relates verse 1 as the righteousness of God acting for his own name sake in verse 3. In Daniel 9:7, 13-19 Piper says that “When Daniel prays that Israel’s deliverance would accord with God’s ‘righteous acts’ (verse 16) and that is ‘for Thine own sake’ (verses 17, 19), he implies that the most fundamental characteristic of divine righteousness is God’s unswerving allegiance always to act for his own name sake.” He argues in Isa 43: 6,7 and Isa 49:3 that God upholds his elect not ultimately for the sake of his covenant promise, but “for the sake of His glory.”[38] In Jeremiah 14: 7, 9, 20f Piper shows very clearly that God’s covenant faithfulness is “penultimate” to the “ultimate” ground of God’s saving intervention, that is, “to the praise and glory for God.” He concludes that there is adequate evidence to affirm his thesis regarding the biblical notions of the righteousness of God and that is:

The righteousness of God consists most basically in God’s unwavering commitment to preserve the honor of his name and display his glory. Thus if God ever abandoned this commitment and no longer sought in all things the magnifying of his own glory, then there indeed would be unrighteousness in God.[39]

In conclusion, Piper makes a strong biblical case for a biblical notion of the righteousness of God commensurate with the traditional Pauline perspective. His argument reminds me of St Anselm’s when he said:

Again, if there is nothing greater or better than God, there is nothing more just than supreme justice, which maintains God’s honor in the arrangement of things, and [sic] which is nothing else but God himself…. Therefore [sic] God maintains nothing with more justice that the honor of his own dignity.[40]

In Chapter XIII of Cur Deus Homo, from which the broader context of this quote is taken, St. Anselm speaks in terms of justice. St. Anselm speaks in terms of justice as both “the order of things” or the “arrangement of things,” on the one hand, and, on the another, justice as honor due to God which Anselm explains as being simply “God himself.” We see that ultimate justice is concerned about the proper social order, but one defined in relationship to God. Proper order is defined as humanity honoring God. We can say that the social condition or (more precisely) the economy of a rightly ordered society is constitutive of ultimate justice, but the social economy or condition of humanity of a rightly ordered society is secondary to the divine economy of God. This divine economy of God takes moral precedent over-and-above the social conditions of a rightly ordered society. What is this divine economy? Anselm contends that it is “God himself,” i.e., the person of God. The person of God is the “honor of his own dignity.” Anselm notes that honor is something due to God. In other words, (to put it in the parlance of the moral discourse of rights) God has a claim-right to honor. Honor is the respect due to God which is commensurable to God’s inherent worth or dignity. In short God’s divine rights are His claims to honor: the cardinal claim-rights of worship and obedience etc. What St. Anselm is describing is theologically identical to what Piper is arguing: God’s number one purpose/passion/zeal is to uphold His glory. In biblical parlance, it’s nothing less that the Righteousness of God.

[6] David C. Sim, “Further Evidence Of An Anti-Pauline Perspective,” New Testament Studies 53, no. 3 (2007, July 1): 325-343. When the author says “Anti-Pauline Perspective” he means to says Anti-Pauline Perspective qua Traditional Perspective in general. The abstract reads: “The reactional pericope in Matt 7.21–23, in which Jesus the final judge condemns certain false Christians, can and should be viewed as an anti-Pauline text. Those rejected by the Matthean Jesus are none other than Paul and those of his circle. This identification is indicated not only by their description as workers of lawlessness, but also by their defence that they are true Christians because they prophesy, work miracles and perform exorcisms in the name of Jesus. These charismatic activities were clearly associated with Paul and/​or his churches.”

[7] E. P and Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (London: SCM, 1977). Sanders is one of the founders of NPP. He coined the term “covenantal nomism.” arguing that one same in by grace but stayed in by works. Sanders comes to this conclusion (in part) by a mono-covenantalism which conflates the two covenants of works (Suzerain treaty) and grace (Royal grant).

[14] N. T. Wright, “Justification By (Covenantal) Faith To The (Covenantal) Doers: Romans 2 Within The Argument Of The Letter,” The Covenant Quarterly 72,. Wright argues that (in part) that future Justification is based on works, while present justification is based on faith. In this article Wright mixes and confuses Justification and Sanctification, declaration and transformation.

[15] N. T Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 110. Wright states that the “phrase has routinely been understood in terms of the righteous status which the covenant god reckons or ‘imputes’ to believers, but this interpretation then regularly leaves the verse dangling off the edge of the argument.”.

Romans 6:11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. (Rom 6:11 ESV)

The New Year is here!! And with the New Year comes a plethora of New Year’s resolutions: spend time with family, get more fit, quit drinking….etc. I recently read a “top-ten” of New Year’s resolutions that was based upon the Ten Commandments for Christians. Comparing a believer’s New Year’s resolution with an unbeliever’s… got me thinking: what is the difference? What is the difference between a believer’s resolution to struggle visavis an unbeliever’s struggle? Jerry Bridges in an article in Modern Reformation says:

Unbelievers do not struggle with sin. They may seek to overcome some bad habit, but they do not see that habit as sin. They do not have a sense of sin against a holy God. Believers, on the other hand, struggle with sin as sin. We see our sinful words, thoughts, and deeds as sin against God; and we feel guilty because of it. This is where we must continue to go back to the gospel. To consider ourselves dead to sin is to believe the gospel.

Bridges couldn’t be more right!! Unbelievers are not aware of sin qua sin, that is, sin as sin against God. Unbelievers are aware that things do go-awry; all that is needed is a New Year’s rebooting to start afresh, to rid ourselves of all the bad habits and all the junk-mail that slow-down our lives. By contrast, believers are aware that sin is much deeper than bad habits. We know that a moral resolution of habituation every year or even every day will not suffice. We know that we need grace. Grace is not just for non-believers, but for believers as well. Year after year, month after month, week after week, day after day—we must be reminded, and we must believe that we are dead to sin: that is to say to both the guilt and the dominion of sin. If we really believed this we would struggle with a resolute confidence knowing that we are “dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.” D.A. Carson describes the Christian struggle this way:

People do not drift toward holiness. Apart from grace-driven effort, people do not gravitate toward godliness, prayer, obedience to Scripture, faith, and delight in the Lord. We drift toward compromise and call it tolerance; we drift toward disobedience and call it freedom; we drift toward superstition and call it faith. We cherish the indiscipline of lost self-control and call it relaxation; we slouch toward prayerlessness and delude ourselves into thinking we have escaped legalism; we slide toward godlessness and convince ourselves we have been liberated.

Carson is right. Holiness is hard work and it takes great effort on our part. But we must never forget that we can be confident that our hard work will pay off if we remember that our efforts are held up by grace, that God preserves us in our perseverance. Joel Beeke nicely describes the Christian confidence this way:

As believers, Christ stands on the shores of our lives as we sail over the rough winds and waves. He will never let us go beyond the scope of His high-priestly …eye; He will always bear us up on His high-priestly shoulders; He will never remove us from His high-priestly heart; we are never beyond the reach of His high-priestly hands; and we are never omitted from His high-priestly intercessions. What a Savior! In Him, we can finish 2015 well, and enter 2016 with confidence and security.

Whatever your resolution this year, be resolved to go back to the great gospel of God in Christ! May we struggle to be better Christians, knowing that Christ has already won our battle for us.